


According to Specifications

by Kantayra



Category: Doctor Who & Related Fandoms, Doctor Who (Big Finish Audio)
Genre: Dialogue-Only, Disguise, Humor, M/M, POV Original Character, Rejection, Software Development, extreme pettiness
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-04-14
Updated: 2020-04-14
Packaged: 2021-03-02 01:28:23
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,037
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/23656861
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Kantayra/pseuds/Kantayra
Summary: Prior to the audio 'Vampire of the Mind': The Master has some very exacting specifications for the Dominus Institute website's application-rejection system. Almost as if he anticipates rejecting someonespecial.
Relationships: The Doctor/The Master (Doctor Who)
Kudos: 16





	According to Specifications

**Author's Note:**

> I was re-listening to 'Vampire of the Mind' and was reminded of the fact that the Master (posing as Dr. Damien Scott) actually got to reject the Doctor's research-grant application, and how much he must've _loved_ that. (Even after Six defeated him, that part alone has to make the whole mess fall into the Master's "win" column, right?)

“Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, Doctor Scott.”

“Oh, not at all, not at all, my dear! And no need for formalities! Call me Damien. Now, how may I be of assistance?”

“Thank you…Damien. The thing is… Well, it's just that I had some questions about the software specifications for grant-application portal on the Dominus Institute website? Just a few clarifications here and there. There’s some things in here that go against usability standards, things like that.”

“Please, have a seat! Would you like some tea? I’ll have Carol bring some tea. Carol!”

“No, I don’t need— Well, yes, thank you. Milk, no sugar.”

“There now, that’s _so_ much better, isn’t it? Now, what were your questions?”

“Right, so… Requirement 6.C.ii.: ‘The system shall display 3 buttons at the bottom of the Grant Review Page: 1) Fast Track, 2) Defer, 3) Reject.’”

“That sounds right. What’s your question?”

“It’s the sub-points on the Reject button that has the Business Analysis team confused: 6.C.ii.f.: ‘Clicking the Reject button shall display a Confirmation Pop-Up Modal (1 of 10) with two buttons: ‘Reject the <Applicant Title>’ and ‘Cancel’.’ First question: Shouldn’t it be the _application_ title? Or even the applicant name? The applicant title will mean it says something like ‘Reject the Professor’, which doesn’t really orient the end-user on which application they’re rejecting. The team thinks it’s probably just a typo.”

“No, no, the specification is absolutely correct. It needs to be the applicant title. This is very important to our end-users.”

“I… Well, all right. That’s just a minor thing. I suppose they can still see the title and name on the page behind the pop-up, if they really need a reminder.”

“Just so.”

“Okay, sure. So, now I think there was some kind of copy-and-paste error. After that, we have 6.C.ii.g.: ‘Clicking the Reject button shall display a second Confirmation Pop-Up Modal (2 of 10) with two buttons: ‘Reject the <Applicant Title>’ and ‘Cancel’.’ It’s just the same as the last one. Do you remember if there needed to be a different pop-up for the workflow, or is this just redundant?”

“That’s very much intentional. We need to click reject again.”

“Again? But you’re already clicking ‘Reject’ once, and then ‘Reject the <Title>’, and now you want the end-user to click ‘Reject the <Title>’ again?”

“Yes, that’s right. It’s a good thing we clarified all this, I must say. I would hate for you to have made assumptions and cut some of this crucial functionality.”

“But…why is it crucial? Won’t it be confusing, like the users will think the first button didn’t do anything? And at the same time, it’ll mean the end-user needs to make a lot of unnecessary clicks. I could see maybe with the final Accept because we wouldn’t want to promise funding and then have to pull it back if someone mis-clicked, but does it really matter with rejections?”

“Our end-users want to take their time to think carefully about rejections. We want to extend the process as long as possible. _Savour it_ , if you will.”

“Uh… Not sure I follow?”

“Well, we wouldn’t want to crush the poor hopes of any budding researcher who might get unintentionally rejected too hastily, now would we? Imagine what that would do to delicate academic egos!”

“I…guess? But I still have literally never worked on a software project where clicking a button in a pop-up brings up an identical pop-up.”

“Yes, well, that’s why we needed a custom website.”

“Okay, right. You’re the product owner. As long as you approve it?”

“I do, my dear, I absolutely do.”

“So… Now, I’d written off the next, what – seven? – bullets as more copy-and-paste errors, but now I’ve got to ask: the exact same modal, seven more times? Three-of-10 through 10-of-10?”

“That should be _eight_ more times: ten minus three is seven; three _through_ ten, inclusive, is eight.”

“You’re right, sorry, eight.”

“Not to worry. Primitive brains and all that.”

“Sorry, _what_?”

“Oh, nothing, nothing. Go on?”

“You really want ten identical pop-ups, and each time you click reject on one, it immediately asks you if you want to reject again?”

“Ooh! What a _splendid_ idea! Please, make that change to the specification: After the first ‘Reject the Doctor’, make sure each subsequent button says ‘Reject the Doctor _again_ ’. I love it!”

“Uh, sure. I can…do that. Just let me make a note here.”

“Put a rush on that change, while you’re at it. That verbiage is far superior.”

“You do understand that it’s going to take each end-user a long time to click all these buttons?”

“Trust me: our end-users _want_ to take a long time clicking all those buttons. Maybe draw it out over a nice evening at home. With each click, they can think about just who they’re rejecting, think about how much that rejection is truly _deserved_. This isn’t the sort of thing to be taken lightly, you know.”

“… _Right_. Look, is there someone else I can talk to? Or any way I can meet some of the actual end-users? I feel like I don’t really understand their user needs. It makes it hard to do my job.”

“My dear, I _am_ the primary end-user.”

“…Oh.”

“Just follow the specifications exactly, and you’ll be fine. I spent a great deal of time on them to get them exactly right. I believe I was quite thorough.”

“Yes, you certainly were.”

“I am most gratified to see that your company is so attentive to detail. The last two failed spectacularly, especially with some of these more esoteric requirements; they tended to make _bad assumptions_. I trust we won’t have to switch to yet _another_ vendor, hmm?”

“No! No worries! We can develop it exactly the way you wrote it down.”

“Excellent! Do that, then. _Exactly_.”

***

She made exactly _one_ surprise change to the software specifications, without approval.

The final modal, rather than just saying ‘Reject the Doctor again’, said instead ‘Reject the Doctor again, _nyah-nyah_!’”

The bonus check she received was the biggest she’d ever seen.

After all, she’d made her career by learning to understand her end-users’ wants and needs _very_ well.


End file.
